Richard Prince and Gagosian fight back over copyright

Response to lawsuit by French photographer Patrick Cariou claims images not “strikingly original”

NEW YORK. Lawyers for Richard Prince and his dealer Larry Gagosian have responded to a copyright-infringement lawsuit filed by French photographer Patrick Cariou, vigorously arguing that Prince’s appropriation of Cariou’s photographs of Rastafarians for a recent series of paintings is protected under the US doctrine of “fair use”.

The suit, filed in New York after Gagosian displayed the paintings in a show titled “Canal Zone” (8 November-20 December 2008), alleges that the defendants made unauthorised use of images from Cariou’s 2000 book Yes Rasta, an ethnographic survey of Rastafarian culture that the photographer assembled during a decade of research in the mountains of Jamaica. The Rizzoli publishing house, which co-produced the “Canal Zone” catalogue and was also named in the suit, filed a response denying that it distributes the book and claiming indemnity.

Cariou’s lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages as well as the “impounding, destruction, or other disposition” of all 22 paintings in the series—which combines the Rastafarian images with pornography and expressionistic brushwork—as well as all unsold catalogues and preparatory materials. In their answer to Cariou’s suit, Gagosian’s lawyers assert that Prince’s incorporation of the photographs is allowable under fair use, which permits the limited reproduction of copyright material for creative purposes. “Cariou’s copyrighted works,” the response states, “are factually based in that they are real-life photographs of Rastafarians as they appear in their native environments, whereas the works of art by Prince utilise small portions of the photographs, together with other images and media, to create a new and unique work which comments upon certain aspects of culture.” Gagosian’s filing further claims that “the creation and exhibition of Prince’s works was not commercially exploitative, was justified with a genuine creative rationale, and was done without bad faith”.

In his response, Prince, a renowned appropriation artist who frequently uses others’ imagery in his work, argued that the photographs in Yes Rasta are not “‘strikingly original’ or ‘distinctive’ in nature”, and that his “transformative” uses of the photographs were “done in good faith and reflect established artistic practices”. Prince’s answer furthermore stated that his appropriation, which he claims is sanctioned under fair use, “poses no harm to the value of such photographs and any market value relating to the photographs has… been enhanced rather than decreased”. Lawyers for Prince and Rizzoli declined to comment, and Gagosian’s representation did not return phone calls. Prince was sued in the 1980s for copyright infringement related to another photographer’s work; the lawsuit, lodged by Garry Gross, was reportedly settled out of court.

In a telephone conversation, Cariou, who is based in Paris, bridled at the claim that Prince only used a small portion of his Yes Rasta photographs. “In my lawyer’s opinion and others’ opinion, this case goes way beyond fair use,” he said. “They used 30 pictures of mine. If you’ve seen the ‘Canal Zone’ book, it starts with Rasta, it ends with Rasta—it is the centrality of it, there is no question.” According to Cariou, the suit has now advanced to the discovery phase, during which his lawyer will try to ascertain how much money the defendants earned from the paintings, among other matters. Gagosian’s filing states that eight paintings from the series were sold, and Cariou says they were priced between $1.5m and $3m each. To Cariou, the defendants’ response has been “extremely arrogant”, particularly the claim that his work is not distinctive or original.

“I laughed,” he said. “I could be a really bad photographer, but in that case why did you use 30 of my pictures?” Cariou says that he has already received a “settlement proposal” that he would consider for a “just” amount. “But it’s a big number we’re talking about,” he says.

More from The Art Newspaper

Comments

10 Apr 11
23:13 CET

LEON TAN, STOCKHOLM

It's worth noting that Cariou did not create the photographs in a vacuum. Yet the Rasta receives no consideration, and very likely, little or no recompense, in the same way that we whose expressions and lives are photographed or filmed and commodified by news agencies the world over, are entirely absent from contemporary equations of copyright and profit. The Rasta, whose self-composition is an inextricable aspect of living, is denigrated as an artist by the very institution of copyright, highlighting the absence of a rigorous concept of creation in the theoretical foundations of copyright legislation. http://www.metamute.org/en/news_and_analysis/patrick_cariou_versus_richard_prince_original_versus_copy

22 Mar 11
14:44 CET

LEE MARTIN, NEW YORK

This new ruling by the judge opens up a whole can of worms... if you think of how often design objects, images and photographs are incorporated into artworks, one can quickly see how this can spiral out of control... Must we really set up "percentage" guidelines in usage laws???... What do we do with the whole sector of art surrounding found objects??? The defendant in this case is not passing off the photographs as his own, he is incorporating images from a book into his own creations... if this is illegal, then we need to warn every person who has ever performed decopage on something they may be sued... It seems this lawsuit is mostly about the large sums of money, and an artist who has been offended...

7 May 10
17:44 CET

MASTERMAYHEM, COLLINGSWOOD, NJ

Prince is right. If he believes the original photographs are inferior, boring, and that he has made them better, more interesting, than who can argue with him? This is insane and frustrating, but why should "art" be any less insane and frustrating as anything else in life? Money? Who cares. What a planet...

Submit a comment

All comments are moderated. If you would like your comment to be approved, please use your real name, not a pseudonym. We ask for your email address in case we wish to contact you - it will not be made public and we do not use it for any other purpose.

Email*
 
Name*
 
City*
 
Comment*
 

Want to write a longer comment to this article? Email letters@theartnewspaper.com

 

Share this